Is SC2 an "Easy Game"? - Page 2

On September 13 2012 06:46 MysteryMeat1 wrote:


Their is one flaw in your argument. While BW pro's did catch up in 3 months a lot of the mechanics are transferable to sc2. I mean besides learning some new hotkeys (don't really have to, just change them) all you have to do is learn new strategies. I would not argue that SC2 is easier but the players from Broodwar are just much better.

On September 13 2012 06:26 DRTnOOber wrote:
It's turned into a religion/no religion argument!

Thank you OP for attempting to provide some numbers. I agree with your sentiment, and your view.

The difficulty of a game is not a "matter of opinion" - it is a real, measurable quality as long as you define what "difficulty" is in the first place, as the OP has.

The difference between a Brood War player criticising SC2 at every turn for being "easy" and the OP, is that the OP has done some research, put some thought into the argument; and I honestly believe if that stats came back overwhelmingly in BW's favour they would have agreed - but they didn't.

The math may not be perfect, but it is at least some evidence that contradicts the endless mind numbing SC2 bashing that lurks in every corner. Brood War was an incredible game, no-one is arguing otherwise, but that doesn't mean it's ok to diminish the experience of another group of people who play (and love) another game (SC2).

5/5 for the post.

Using force-fields perfectly to hit the right spots at the right times to get the absolute most out of your energy is an art form as skillful and beautiful as muta-stacking.

The difference between a Brood War player criticising SC2 at every turn for being "easy" and the OP, is that the OP has done some research, put some thought into the argument; and I honestly believe if that stats came back overwhelmingly in BW's favour they would have agreed - but they didn't.

On September 13 2012 06:55 Birdie wrote:

But that still means that the OP's 'statistics' are irrelevant.

I don't think anyone can deny these points:
1: BW has a higher mechanical skill floor to play at what is considered a basic level.
2: BW has a higher mechanical skill ceiling.
3: Both SCII and SCBW have theoretical skill ceilings for general skill (not just mechanical skill) than what has been reached so far.

But the OP is claiming that because the win percentages for SCII and SCBW are very similiar, the games have similiar difficulty. This is blatantly wrong; the curves he is using SHOULD be very similiar, due to the nature of the curves. Most likely, the top 39 players of chess would also have similiar win percentages, or indeed any game you care to choose.

On September 13 2012 06:45 DRTnOOber wrote:

This is just hypothetical heresay, at least the OP tried to provide some knid of analytical evidence. I wouldn't be surprised if SC2 players could go and play well in BW within 3 months, but my opinion doesn't matter. Show me the evidence.

On September 13 2012 06:46 MysteryMeat1 wrote:


Their is one flaw in your argument. While BW pro's did catch up in 3 months a lot of the mechanics are transferable to sc2. I mean besides learning some new hotkeys (don't really have to, just change them) all you have to do is learn new strategies. I would not argue that SC2 is easier but the players from Broodwar are just much better.


EDIT: Its almost like a 400 meter track star begins running the 800 meter and is also really really good.

On September 13 2012 07:01 sAsImre wrote:


basically you agree with the elephant theory so?

On September 13 2012 08:19 DRTnOOber wrote:
Lots of disagreement but no decent explanations. Let's say BW is a "harder" game - why? Be specific. I am an avid SC2 fan, but I would tend to agree BW was a "harder" game if someone gave a reasoned explanation which isn't an emotional defence of BW (which ends up being an emotional attack at SC2).

"A higher APM requirement" is not an explanation. I could equally say SC2 is a faster game, so mechanically it's harder to micro-manage battles, you have less time to respond when you scout an attack, etc.

Things that make BW hard:

- Older UI without massive control groups, less shortcut keys.
- Less automated activity; worker rallying at mineral clusters, autorepair, etc.
- Less "one trick pony" units, so unit choice is trickier.

Things that make SC2 hard:

- Faster pace of game means you have to be quicker at micro-management.

Even from writing that it does look like BW is a "harder" game, mostly because of the older interface which doesn't automate/streamline the playing experience like SC2 does. Would like to see my lists expanded.

On September 13 2012 08:19 DRTnOOber wrote:
Lots of disagreement but no decent explanations. Let's say BW is a "harder" game - why? Be specific. I am an avid SC2 fan, but I would tend to agree BW was a "harder" game if someone gave a reasoned explanation which isn't an emotional defence of BW (which ends up being an emotional attack at SC2).

"A higher APM requirement" is not an explanation. I could equally say SC2 is a faster game, so mechanically it's harder to micro-manage battles, you have less time to respond when you scout an attack, etc.

Things that make BW hard:

- Older UI without massive control groups, less shortcut keys.
- Less automated activity; worker rallying at mineral clusters, autorepair, etc.
- Less "one trick pony" units, so unit choice is trickier.

Things that make SC2 hard:

- Faster pace of game means you have to be quicker at micro-management.

Even from writing that it does look like BW is a "harder" game, mostly because of the older interface which doesn't automate/streamline the playing experience like SC2 does. Would like to see my lists expanded.

On September 13 2012 04:53 RenSC2 wrote:Perhaps one of the key differences between SCBW and SC2 is the way in which a player shows his superiority. A lot of people point to expert muta control as a defining factor in many top notch BW zergs. It is a visually obvious skill when the ball of mutas is staying tight and maximizing it's DPS on a point while minimizing enemy DPS. There are many other difficult micro tricks like this (reaver-shuttle, etc) that are very visually obvious high skill achievements. In SC2, many of the equivalent actions are not so obvious. Using force-fields perfectly to hit the right spots at the right times to get the absolute most out of your energy is an art form as skillful and beautiful as muta-stacking. Yet, the casual observer won't notice that the force-fields should have been one space further back or are overlapping by one space in a few spots. The elite protoss in SC2 will have extra force-fields to spend per the gas investment because they place their fields better, but it's so easy as an observer to overlook it and it's not really something a very knowledgeable caster can dwell on for too long as the action is pretty much guaranteed to get very hot.